Hey, fun fact, threatening an elections official with criminal prosecution unless he rigs an election in your favor is not just impeachable but a federal crime

1/ Many federal criminal statutes could come into play here, but here's one: 52 U.S.C § 20511 punishes by up to 5 years in prison "attempting to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process by the procurement or tabulation...
2/ "...of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held." When the chief elections official of the State of Georgia tells you the votes you want him to "find" would be fictitious...
3/ ...and you persist in not just urging him but threatening him to "find" those "votes" and give them to you, federal law does not allow you to be *willfully ignorant* of the fact that you are urging fictitious votes to be added to the State of Georgia's legally certified tally.
4/ But it's even worse than this for Trump, as he explicitly tells the chief elections official for Georgia that he only "needs" enough votes to win—which is an acknowledgment that he doesn't have a specific actionable complaint but is merely trying to *rig* the election outcome.
UPDATE/ The Washington Post says that it is working on getting the full audio up. Right now key audio excerpts are in the WP article—see link in my feed. The only downside so far is that the interlocutors for the significance of the tape are non-lawyer journalists, not attorneys.
UPDATE2/ Here's what I'd explain to readers here: state/federal criminal statutes generally punish attempted crimes at the same level as completed crimes for the obvious reason that we don't want people to even attempt crimes. If you doubt whether Trump's actions were criminal...
UPDATE3/ ...consider the scenario in which Brad Raffensperger *assents* to what Trump is asking him to do, and fabricates a new vote tally that is just enough for Trump to win. Obviously that would be a crime, but so would the *solicitation* of the crime be. That's what we have.
UPDATE4/ And of course I say "solicitation" here, but what we really mean are *threats*. Trump says he is "notifying" Raffensperger formally that he's eligible for *criminal prosecution* if he doesn't do what Trump is demanding, which is "find" *just enough votes* for him to win.

More from Seth Abramson

(EXCERPT) PROOF OF COLLUSION drops in 3 weeks. Here's the second set of excerpts from this 450-page, 1,650-endnote book. 4 more excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/z0ep5wUW9h


2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.


PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.

BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.

But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.

BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.
I... OMG. I am speechless. This is the *Oscars*. And this just happened. And I do not think it was a bit.

This feels to me like another sign that the world is off its hinges, so I sure hope we are going to find out that—despite there being no evidence of it—this was staged.


(PS) Either that was the most straight-faced comic bit in major-television history—in fact *so* straight-faced it was a total failure—or mega-Hollywood star Will Smith just straight-up *assaulted* a famous comic during one of the most widely watched annual telecasts in the world.

(PS2) I’m agreeing with those of you saying it wasn’t a bit, I just wanted to leave room because... well, because I just can’t believe what happened. I do know that Jada’s hair is a sensitive subject for her, but between that and a violent assault is a hell of a lot of territory.

(VIDEO) Here is the uncensored version.

Not a bit—an assault.

(PS3) This affected me. I just said to my wife, “If Will Smith can’t keep it together at the *Oscars*, how the hell can any of *us* be expected to keep it together anymore?” I’m not saying that response makes sense, only that it reflected how I was feeling.

These are dark times.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.